4.7 Article

Postmitotic nuclear retention of episomal plasmids is altered by DNA labeling and detection methods

期刊

MOLECULAR THERAPY
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 460-467

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ymthe.2005.05.001

关键词

gene therapy; transfection; microinjection; plasmids; episomes; mitosis; peptide nucleic acid; fluorophores; nuclear import

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [EY07128-05, T32 EY007128] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01 HL071643-020005, R01 HL059956, R01 HL059956-07, HL71643, P01 HL071643, HL59956] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One often overlooked aspect of nonviral gene therapy is the maintenance and localization of plasmids within a transfected cell. In this study we have quantified the nuclear retention of plasmids within microinjected cells after a single round of cell division. We employed several commercially available reagents to label plasmids with fluorophores for our microinjection tracking experiments. Interestingly, plasmids labeled with different techniques produced drastically different results. Naked plasmids microinjected directly into nuclei and later detected by in situ hybridization were found almost exclusively within the nuclei of the daughter cells after mitosis and were partitioned between the daughter nuclei with a normal, Gaussian distribution. Identical results were obtained with plasmids labeled with a fluorescent peptide nucleic acid. However, when plasmids were labeled with several commercially available fluorescent DNA labeling kits that randomly attach fluorophores to the entire plasmid and injected into HeLa cell nuclei, the modified plasmids were excluded from daughter nuclei after cell division. Taken together, these results suggest that naked, unmodified plasmids are retained in the nucleus following cell division and likely continue to express in the daughter cells. Our results demonstrate the significant alterations in episome localization that the labeling technique itself can have on plasmid trafficking.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据